Re: [PATCH 02/19] drm/dp: Add support for DP tunneling

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:15:17PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:49:16PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 06:09:04PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:28:33PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > > +static void untrack_tunnel_ref(struct drm_dp_tunnel *tunnel,
> > > > > +			       struct ref_tracker **tracker)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	ref_tracker_free(&tunnel->group->mgr->ref_tracker,
> > > > > +			 tracker);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +struct drm_dp_tunnel *
> > > > > +drm_dp_tunnel_get_untracked(struct drm_dp_tunnel *tunnel)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	track_tunnel_ref(tunnel, NULL);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	return tunnel_get(tunnel);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dp_tunnel_get_untracked);
> > > > 
> > > > Why do these exist?
> > > 
> > > They implement drm_dp_tunnel_get()/put() if
> > > CONFIG_DRM_DISPLAY_DEBUG_DP_TUNNEL_STATE=n.
> > 
> > Why does that kind of irrelevant detail need to be visible
> > in the exported api?
> 
> In non-debug builds the ref_tracker object isn't needed and so
> drm_dp_tunnel_ref won't contain a pointer to it either.

Since it's just a pointer I don't see much point in making
things more complicated by leaving it out.

> drm_dp_tunnel_get/put_untracked() provide a way to get/put a tunnel
> reference without having to pass a ref_tracker pointer.
> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ville Syrjälä
> > Intel

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel